Broadband Monopolies Are Acting Like Old Phone Monopolies. Good Thing Solutions to That Problem Already Exist

The future of competition in high-speed broadband access looks bleak. A vast majority of homes only have their cable monopoly as their choice for speeds in excess of 100 mbps and small ISPs and local governments are carrying the heavy load of deploying fiber networks that surpass gigabit cable networks. Research now shows that these new monopolies have striking similarities to the telephone monopolies of old. But we don’t have to repeat the past; we’ve already seen how laws can promoted competition and broke monopolies.

In the United States, high-speed fiber deployment is low and slow. EFF decided to look into this problem, and we now have a research report by the Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic (TLPC) on behalf of EFF that details the history of our telecom competition policies, why they came into existence with the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the FCC’s mistakes—starting in 2005—that eroded the law and has given us a high-speed broadband access monopoly that disproportionately impacts low income and rural Americans.

Americans Have Been Here Before

AT&T’s telephone monopoly lasted for generations because states and the federal government both allowed and tolerated it. Prior to government intervention, private industry failed to challenge the dominance of AT&T because the incumbent monopoly regularly took extraordinary steps to cut off competitors. The tide began to shift once states, the FCC, the courts, the president, and eventually Congress took dramatic steps to end the monopolization of telecom services.

Many of the provisions in the 1996 Telecom Act that exist now come from solutions tailored by the litigation, regulatory, and state efforts to promote competition among phone companies. For example, it was California and New York states’ efforts to open up competion in local phone calls that inspired Congress to adopt a federal approach of “unbundled network elements (UNEs)” requirements. And those rules—with roots in fighting anticompetitiveness in phones—have helped create several small ISPs that exist today. The requirement for networks to “interconnect” under federal law stemmed from a Department of Justice antitrust action to mandated interconnection decades earlier. These and other federal provisions in law are still disliked by the major incumbent ISPs as AT&T and Verizon are actively asking the FCC today to eliminate UNEs and Comcast is suing California’s net neutrality law because of its interconnection provisions.

This is why the majorISPs have waged such a long war against net neutrality, because all of the federal provisions that involve curtailing the power of monopoly by promoting competition also empower the FCC to enforce net neutrality. Provisions that, again, have their roots in phone monopolies. Provisions that worked. This is also why the competitors to the major ISPs regularly support efforts to restore Title II regulation of the industry, because the 1996 Act’s point was to codify competition as law and helped enable their entry.

The FCC Kept Getting What Would Happen Without Laws and Rules Wrong

Starting in 2005, the FCC began to classify broadband companies as Title I “information services” instead of Title II "telecommunications services" and no longer subjected them to competition law on the premise that broadband options would flourish and telephone would deploy fiber to the home (FTTH). Today, we know none of that happened, but what is striking about the TLPC paper’s historical analysis is the fact that every justification the FCC premised its abandonment of competition law have not panned out.

The FCC thought that wireless companies, satellite companies, and broadband over powerline companies would be hot competition for the telephone and cable industry. But wireless technologies are not able to substitute for wireline broadband services in higher speeds. Even 5G is not competitive with gigabit cable systems, and most people have probably never heard of broadband over powerline today. The reality is a duopoly had persisted for years. Now that many haveabandoned FTTH, cable has monopolized high-speed Internet service. The superior position of the incumbents are not easily surpassed much in the same way the original AT&T monopoly’s dominance was not simply displaced by private actors and people voting with their dollars.

The FCC also thought that your cable companies would be opening up their own networks in the absence of a mandate to give you several options, but we only know what it is like when your broadband choices are Comcast and only Comcast when you have to do things like pretend to cancel your cable service to get overbilled a little less. And probably central to the argument by major ISPs to have competition law removed was it would spur them to invest heavily in their networks all across the country, but other than hyping 5G while avoiding direct competition with cable, they are not investing at levels that will cover the entire nation.

Related Updates

We pause this week to celebrate our longtime friend Gene Crick, a digital rights activist and former president of EFF-Austin, who passed away August 14 in Texas at age 73. Gene was a tireless advocate for free speech, a free, open, and inclusive Internet, and digital rights for everyone in...

When it comes to politics, in-person meetings make a huge difference. Just a few questions from constituents during town halls can show a representative or senator which issues are resonating with the residents of their district or state. Even if you’ve never met an elected representative before, showing up IRL...

As we head into the August, Congress will be on recess and most of your senators and representatives will be heading back to their home states. That means it’ll be easier for you to reach out and talk to them or their staff and ask them to act on important...

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been opposing A.B. 1366, legislation by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, which would renew a law that effectively shields a huge part of the telecommunications industry from state and local regulation. Comcast and AT&T law backed this law, Public Utilities Code Sec. 710, in...

American cities across the country face the same problem: major private Internet providers, facing little in the way of competition, refusing to invest and upgrade their networks to all residents. But not every city has gone through the trouble to analyze the problem, come up with a solution, and still...

Californians have successfully pushed the state's legislature to restore two-thirds of the 2015 Open Internet Order through state laws. Stopping legislation from Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez that's backed by AT&T and Comcast is the final piece to bringing back those critical protections to promote broadband choice. The California Assembly will soon...

In a vote of 232-190, the House of Representatives passed the Save the Internet Act (H.R. 1644). This is a major step forward in the fight for net neutrality protections, and it’s because you spoke up about what you want. The Save the Internet Act was written to restore the...

Congress took a big step today toward protecting net neutrality, competition, and privacy for Internet users. The House Energy and Commerce Committee just voted 30-22 to approve an amended version of the Save the Internet Act of 2019 (H.R.1644). Please join us in urging your members of Congress...

The Save the Internet Act (H.R. 1644) has survived its first vote, 18-11. This is a victory for everyone who wants strong, real net neutrality protections. It is, as is so often the case in the net neutrality battle, a win for the majority of Americans who support these...

When the FCC announced its intention to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order, Americans spoke up. When the FCC ignored the fact that most Americans support net neutrality, Americans spoke up again, asking Congress to reverse the FCC’s decision. And the Senate listened. This fight continues in...